September 11, 2012

That's Rasmussen, by the way. If Romney people are finding that very depressing, here's Rasmussen's presidential tracking poll today, showing Obama coming down from the convention bounce. It's 48% Obama, 45% Romney. Yesterday, it was 50% Obama, 45% Romney (and Obama hadn't hit 50% since February 7-9). Now, I think the swing-state tracking poll is more important, because who cares how many more people in California or New York go for Obama? And there, Obama is doing better today than yesterday. It's 47% Obama, 45% Romney. Yesterday, it was 46% Obama, 45% Romney. Romney's really stuck on that 45! Anyway, margin of error, blah blah blah. Turnout is key, blah blah. The only poll that counts is the one on blah blah blah blah. Aren't you tired of polls? Or are you starting to love them? That Rasmussen! So accurate! So likely-voter-based!

It's amazing how many people don't seem to understand that wealth generating jobs don't come from the government. Sure, the government can "create job" by expanding itself and hiring a bunch of new Federal employees, but that generates no new wealth and only helps the economy is the very short term.

What should the Fed be doing to stimulate the economy? Absolutely nothing.

Well, lowering taxes and reducing regulation might help to create an environment that is condusive to improving the economy.

You (and Sowell) are exactly right. The federal government can't be a net creator of jobs. It can "stimulate" jobs in one area only by taking money from the economy that could've been used more efficiently to stimulate jobs elsewhere. It's the Broken Window Fallacy writ large.

The best the government can to to help job creation are those things you mentioned - reduce the regulatory burden and lower taxes on businesses. Those are precisely the opposite of what Obama stands for, which is why job creation is so poor on his watch.

Flip over and look at the electoral college map. In the states Romney has to win (his path to election) he's up when fully projected. When an incumbent is running the late undecided vote will split against him by between 3/5 and 2/3.

Rasmussen may or may not be correct, other polls show different results (Colorado in particular I question, but Ohio and Wisconsin are also debatable). But Rasmussen's polling is not discouraging, except to the extent that a better candidate would be winning by 2-4% nationally and these battleground states would be Romney +5-8.

The fact that this election is even close is very disappointing. A popular meme yesterday was the question: How bad would it have to be to get a majority to fire Obama? I honestly don't know that. This recovery is already the worse in history by nearly every measure, despite the recovery efforts by Obama being the most expensive in history by a long shot. It would be hard to imagine a worse failure, especially considering the promises made. A Republican President would be at 30% with this. On top of that the people supporting this President are the ones he broke the most promises to, and the ones suffering the most from this economy. It is absolutely demoralizing to see my fellow citizens so impervious to fact, hungry for lies, and incapable of doing the slightest bit of self -examination to help themselves and their country. I feel like I'm watching a giant episode of "Celebrity Rehab".

The polls are incorrect and that includes Rasmussen who is the most reliable for they all over poll blacks, young voters and Dems. Plus, as I have explained time and again here in comments people have been so politically correctness programed that they are reluctant to tell even anonymous pollsters the truth.

"Additionally, Obama polls more strongly personally than he does professionally. I believe that this is evidence of the same chasm we see in polls versus votes on gay marriage. Americans don’t want to tell pollsters that they dislike the president, out of fear that they will come off as racist. The fact is, the president’s race helped him win four years ago but will not help him win re-election. His record will matter no matter how many distractions he and his campaign toss up. The same voters who tend to say that they like Obama personally still rate him poorly on his job performance. Many of those voters turned out to buy chicken sandwiches last month to defend free speech. They will turn out in November."

Generally, businesses tend to employ more people than they need because they anticipate future growth. These are the people that lose their job during a downturn. When confidence returns, these people are rehired and the economy grows and the unempoloyment rate goes back down.

However our problem now is that business confidence in the future is dismal - much of it due to Obama and his dismal policies on raising taxes, requiring employer health insurance, and just the general overall tone of Obama's anti-business mentality.

Thus, the job growth flatlined starting in 2009 because there is no confidence in the future.

Okay, so you are feeling good though as a middle aged woman or man with a desk job in a low growth environoment. Don't feel good for long. Because the longer we have this massive unemployment, the more pressure people in "safe" jobs will feel from young unemployed educated people being willing to work for lower wages etc... The college graduate in their bedroom looking at their faded Obama poster is going to be coming after your job and will be willing to work for half as much because any job is better than no job. Its the same pressure blue collar workers felt and still feel from immigrants in the 1990s-2000s willing to work for low wages.

This is the future. educated single Obama voters don't get. They feel safe now and like Obama because of his safety net and "caring" for people. But they don't realize that Obama cares little for job creators. Obama only cares about workers. More food stamps, more unemployment insurance, etc.. But Obama hates job creators. They are just rich bastards that need to be taxed.

But if you have no future jobs being created, then look out for your job, even if you think its safe today!!!!

The country is in tatters and Romney won't fix it. Obama will make it worse. Romney won't repeat Obamacare, replace John Roberts, get rid of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, or 3/4 of the US government.

Shouting Thomas said... Job creation is not the job of the Federal government!

Thomas Sowell states the problem quite succinctly in this article.

What should the Fed be doing to stimulate the economy? Absolutely nothing.

Well, lowering taxes and reducing regulation might help to create an environment that is condusive to improving the economy.

The cry to "Do Something!" is our problem. Don't do anything.

Government has far less control in creating a positive economy than most people believe. But the government can screw it up. So we can expect Romney to help the economy by removign the inhibitors. Those inhibitors are (1) excessive spending which creates tax uncertainty, and (2) excessive regulation which creates legal uncertainty.

So I think those count as doing something. Doing nothing leads to bankruptcy.

There are too many polls with too many different methodologies and outcomes to even "average" them ala RCP. Is WAPO off their rocker now? Maybe, maybe not.

In any case, aren't we just seeing the normal convention "bounce?" Didn't McCain get a 5 point lead after the Republican convention last election? That did not turn out too well for him.

I am not saying that the polls are wrong, just that we need a little perspective. I also think that since the press doesn't have much to write about, they report on polls, which is easy to do. This will remain so until the debates, when reporting will return to how effective the debates were at moving the polls.

I'm pretty sure the race is dead even, the polls have indisputable bias to the left of about 4 points. That it's that close is a disgrace. Half the country is voting for a free lunch, or basing their vote on trivia.

Just imagine that Obama got caught on a hot mic saying: I can't help the situation. I just need to get reelected so I will be in office when it finally turns around on it's own. People will blame Bush and give me credit."

But I do watch the polls daily for signs of the electorate realizing that Obama is nothing but a whiner, and nearly 100% ineffectual as a President.

But it seems like Democrat Party racism and the MSM are enough to keep support for Obama strong.

I still believe that we are nation of creators and builders, that the American Dream is still to build something of value that lasts longer than we do, and to profit from that effort.

I really hope that the American Dream hasn't become using victim status to find someone else to pay for individual comfort.

A vote for Obama on election day is a vote for looters, a vote for grasshoppers, a vote for economic illiteracy, a vote for political victory in disregard to the human costs, a vote to become a Food Stamp Nation.

Add in all the people who are directly employed by gov't, or work for companies who depend on gov't; for them, Zero is better.

Add in many women who don't think Romney "cares" so they will vote emotion over rationality.

Add in progressives, liberals, commies, eetc.

Add in MSM/DNC demonization.

Mix and stir. There you go.

Meanwhile, Romney thinks it's ok to force insurance companies to insure "children" up to 26 and to cover pre-existing conditions. So, he's no conservative [who knew?] and won't be making any bold moves that would really help.

"...who cares how many more people in California or New York go for Obama?"

I care, because I don't think the populace is ready for Obama's defeat. People in California and New York, two of the three most populous states, are going to be very surprised if Obama loses. If they weren't in such an echo chamber, they might hear for whom the bell is tolling. Wait...let me get another metaphor...no, too lazy.

I don't follow or worry about polls much. Doesn't mean much to me. I figure it's close. Supporting Obama, I'll live with Romney. It's a little pleasant that Obama's doing better at this point than I thought he would.

The corrupt liberal media are using the polls to advance the idea that Obama can't be beat for they are determined to pull his sorry socialist/communist ass across the finish line. Its not going to work this time because most people realize the liberal media sold them a lemon last election so they won't buy the same liberal shit again.

Polls are such bullshit. Do we really think there is this daily swing of opinion about various issues? People by and large have their minds made up. All that's happening is that a different group of people who have decided already are asked question on different days. Usually these skew democrat anyway, but thinking that this is an accurate reflection in an specific sense is silly. Especially when it's largely neck and neck.if it were 80% one way and 20% another those numbers would give you a general overview of where the country was but would still not represent actual numbers. When it's much closer it's a toss up.Besides we don't elect presidents based on popular votes. It's decided on the state level, which only adds to the confusion.

I know people either don't agree or don't know this, but a lot of the slowness in the economy and hiring is based on nothing more than a distrust of the Obama administration by the people who invest,and hire. A huge part of the problem is the man himself, his beliefs, his words, and those of the people he surrounds himself with.

The people with the ability to turn things around, are just waiting and holding their potential for hope and change. Some may think that's unfair, but it is exactly fair. He made a choice, and so did the people who voted for him. They voted for stagnation. The average moderate Democrat, or yes, even McCain would not have had this effect.

The economy is made by millions of little people making decisions for their own best interest, and some of that is emotional or intuitive, but it's based on facts, words and actions. This President has completely blown that. He has made those people believe he and his government are out to get them at the first sign of success. Just keeping his mouth shut would have been better.

Like I said previously, I'm giving it a week from the final day of the convention before I start to worry. So, given that it ended last Thurs., I'll wait until the numbers are published Friday.

At that point the horrible jobs report will have been absorbed and the odd effect of weekend polling will not be in effect. We should be able to see if the numbers have any staying power at that point.

I am curious why they would be using the electoral makeup from 2008. I mean, even if one doesn't believe the numbers will be the same as in 2010 do you really believe that Obama will supporters will have the same enthusiasm? I wonder what would happen if you split the difference between turnout for 2008 and 2010.

If the media polls are really being gamed in an effort to show Obama with a lead, that could be a big problem if Obama also loses the election. Many many libs will be shocked and think Romney is an illegimate president.

If Obama is re-elected, the current economic situation we are in now will look like roses.I predict a full recession. Watch your savings accounts and retirement funds, folks.I predict a full collapse. The takers, the blind-faithful and the pop culture left will be happy - but the support system will collapse.

So far the polling is falling in with my prediction. Obama will be in the lead, usually within the margin of error right up to election day, then will "unexpectedly" lose by 3%-4%. Pollsters will grin sheepishly, admit their work wasn't great, though it has been worse, and go back to pretending they have a finger on the pulse of America-- and that they are completely unbiased.

If the media polls are really being gamed in an effort to show Obama with a lead, that could be a big problem if Obama also loses the election. Many many libs will be shocked and think Romney is an illegimate president.

Remember in 1992, it was the economy stupid? Now it is social issues that matter for many who are voting for Obama, from what I see with people I know. The economy was Bush's fault, and Obama is doing the best any President could do. It comes down to, voters see no responsibility for Obama's leadership and everything is excused.

We have health reform is MA, but we PAY for it with high premimiums, high deductables, and copays (except contraception). The lowest wage workers pay the most for less comprehensive plans.

Tyrone Slothrop said... So far the polling is falling in with my prediction. Obama will be in the lead, usually within the margin of error right up to election day, then will "unexpectedly" lose by 3%-4%. Pollsters will grin sheepishly, admit their work wasn't great, though it has been worse, and go back to pretending they have a finger on the pulse of America-- and that they are completely unbiased.

If this is their plan they won't take the hit to their integrity, they'll claim it as evidence of racism.

It may just be that this poll analysis blog serves up the flavor of Kool-Aid that I like but I do think the analysis is correct. It takes the polls and re-balances them with current party id. As you might imagine the polls come out far different.

Yes, there will be significant despondency in Cali and NY when Romney wins. Especially if he pulls 40 or 42 states.

I have a friend from high school who is a lesbian activist attorney working for LA County who is absolutely convinced that she, and the Dems in general, are totally on the pulse of middle America. She thought the DNC convention was pitch-perfect as to what is important to average voters.

I stopped watching early polls years ago because it's a known fact that people lie their a$$es off. They even lie at exit polls.All I know is that there is no way Obama doesn't lose 5% to 8% of what he got in 2008.

Romneys main "jobs creation problems" are in large part tracable to things that worked 30 years back, but appear to have failed just as they became High Conservative Republican Dogma:

1. Tax cuts for the wealthy, the "jobs creators", appear to have created no jobs in the last 20 years.

2. Dogma as applied to Free Trade has not been a "jobs creator" but a jobs and industry destroyer - though the unemployed benefit from cheaper Chinastuff.(They forget that Reagan stopped the Japs from eliminating just about every automotive, construction machinery, and half the high tech jobs by "voluntary quotas". And free trade purists screamed at Reagan at the time he was doing "Another Smoot-Hawley".)

3. Republican dogma is to support cheap illegals and H1-B visas rather than help train the US workforce because more profits can happen with cheaper Nigerian nurses, trained Mexican masons, and whole graduating university classes of Taiwanese software engineers.

4. Of course, the fear of CHina wrecking more industries under free trade is so great that Obamites have made Romney the poster child for "freedom to offshore jobs". Unfair. But for example, Republicans froth at the mouth when there is any talk of hammering down drug prices to penalize Big Pharma for choosing the "free choice of the market" to send most drug company R&D overseas to cheaper scientists and researchers.

Romney better come up with a better message. Even Reagan was willing to say fuck free trade and illegals and offshoring when the US worker was being screwed.

Have you noticed that there are "facts" out that people are seeing that are completely contradictory. One meme is that jobs have actually improve a lot under Obama. In a way that's true. As he took over, the situation was right at the bottom, and jobs had been tanking badly for months. Immediately the natural flow from the bottom of a recession took over and things started to improve, before anything Obama did could have an effect. It continued to do so on a bumping recovery for the first year, then it stalled out. Now after almost four years, the net result of Obama's term is the worst in modern history as shown here:

"It would take Obama roughly 280,000 new jobs per month for every month from now until January 2013 to get him out of last place. [He would need 2.1 million new jobs per month for every month until January 2013 to catch up to Carter.]While it would be unfair to compare Obama with Clinton, this chart shows that at this point President Obama’s job numbers are far worse than Presidents Carter, Kennedy, and Ford, who were in office almost as long or served much shorter periods than he has."

It may just be that this poll analysis blog serves up the flavor of Kool-Aid that I like but I do think the analysis is correct. It takes the polls and re-balances them with current party id. As you might imagine the polls come out far different.

Interesting stuff. Love to see what they'd make of that ARG poll that has the Romster 10 ahead and Zero at his approval of 43.

Since it's racisss to say anything but good about Obama that's what the polled are feeding the pollsters. Only in the voting booth will they be able to safely discharge their hatred of The Alien. A landslide of the hatred he so richly deserves in November.

I look at Romney and at jokes like Akin and I'm tempted to paranoia, thinking the fix is in and BO has been chosen in advance by the Illuminati. I don't know how else to account for the ineptitude of the Republican Party. To run against a president weaker than any to hold the office in my lifetime with a candidate equally uninspiring looks to me like throwing the contest. I have to remind myself that presidential candidates from both parties for as long as I can remember have all been terrible to shake the feeling that one side or the other intends to lose. Unless..... the fix has always been in.

Nonapod said..."I agree, but from a candidate's POV, you have to make the case your plan will make job creation more likely to occur."

I guess the real magic of the Democrats has been convincing a lot of people that raising taxes on job creators is the best way to create new jobs.

======The problem is that we have had 12 years of failure of lowering taxes on the rich to create any jobs. For most of the public, that bit of Republican Dogma is on the ash heap of history. They know Reagan himself raised taxes on the rich in 1986 by ridding the country of many loopholes and tax shelters the rich had used to avoid paying any taxes.And Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs in his Administration than Reagan did.

And "Free Trade for Freedom Lovers" is now interpreted by the general public as shorthand for "What new industry do the free traders want to destroy next to make the rich richer and fuck the jobs and wages of the lower 99% of Americans??"

I'd like to know the geographic distribution of the people answering these polls. If they disproportionately ask the questions in a state that is solidly for BHO or for MR, that will skew the results?

I don't understand how someone after 4 years of dismal job growth can "trust" (whatever that means) Obama more than Romney on job creation.

I saw this past weekend a fabulous box graphic showing job creation/unemployment as a function of President. Box size was job creation (Obama's was tiny) and Box color was unemployment. I wish I could find it again. I think it went all the way back to Eisenhower.

I don't think the problem is with Romney. Even considering his weaknesses, he's as popular or more so as any other Repub candidate would be with Independents and Dems, and the dislike of Obama has pushed as many Repubs to his side as anyone would get.

The problem is that Obama's support is impervious to fact, bad news, poor performance, dishonesty, or broken promises. Half the country just does not care about anything real. They are gonna vote for him, period. He could bludgeon his dog to death on the White House lawn with a dead baby seal and still get 47%.

Edutcher, check the list. I think the poll you are referring to is referenced for 9/7/12 and after re-balance comes out to Romney +5.42. The ARG website has the details of the poll and methodology. Basically, it has Romney up +3 with a party breakdown of 38 vs 34 for Dems vs Rep. So, even with those positive results for Romney it under counts them because the Dems are over sampled. That leads to the +5.42 after re-balance.

Darcy said... Tsunami coming. Do not believe the polls. It isn't even close. It is in the best interest of the media orgs to make it look tight right now, plus they have to try to help their guy.

I think Romney's going to win, but I don't think the polls are materially off right now. If they were the difference between PPP and Rasmussen would be bigger. The discrepancy isn't with polls today, it's with human nature and understanding process.

Many Americans are only vaguely aware of politics right now. There's a certain percentage of people who are saying they lean Obama who haven't really made up their minds yet. Some of those are going to decide the caricature of Romney the cultist racist whi is going to fire every government employee in the country is absurd and change their votes to him. Obama as the incumbent is going to see a small and slow erosion of support, with undecideds breaking against him. Unless someone makes a really stupid gaffe that is deemed disqualifying to the remaining undecideds.

This exact scenario played out under Bush II. Bush was eroding until the Kerry campaign's infamous gay baiting of Cheney.

"Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham tore into Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on her Monday radio show, arguing that the 2012 presidential race was what she called a "gimme election."

"Election after election, we hire people who have lost previous campaigns; who've run campaigns that have failed; who have message campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting re-hired," Ingraham said. "I don't understand that. I don't know why those are the people you hire."

>

Ingraham's usual childish hyperbole aside and her total misunderestimating of Obama and total misoverestimating of mittens notwithstanding. And being totally clueless as regards to presidential politics 101, it appears cons are already letting loose w/their final reckoning er Republicans "post-mortem" (57) days before the already determined final outcome.

The problem is that Obama's support is impervious to fact, bad news, poor performance, dishonesty, or broken promises. Half the country just does not care about anything real. They are gonna vote for him, period. He could bludgeon his dog to death on the White House lawn with a dead baby seal and still get 47%.

I looked at some historical polling data from Gallup and in mid-October, Carter lead Reagan 44% to 40% and we know how that turned out.

That being said, the nation is much more polarized than in 1980. The fact a complete novice won the Presidency proves the electorate can be easily swayed by a smooth talker that allows them to project whatever fantasy candidate they want.

The problem is that we have had 12 years of failure of lowering taxes on the rich to create any jobs. For most of the public, that bit of Republican Dogma is on the ash heap of history.

Not sure what you mean by "12 years of failure". I assume you're talking about job gains and losses theoretically occurring due specifically to the Bush tax cuts, which is a hugely debatable topic.

At any rate, I was specifically referring to each candidates method of dealing with the job creation issue and the public's perception of them. From what I understand, generally speaking Obama's "solution" is centered around raising taxes on the rich (who are generally the job creators). No matter what your interpretation of what effects previous tax cuts have had on job creation, to me it seems a bit more of a difficult to argue that raising taxes is the way to go to create new private sector jobs.

The debates will be more important this year than any other year. But Romney has a great advantage over previous debates against the incumbants. The economy is so bad that every response can be redirected to Obama's failures on the economy. Even questions about gay marriage. Regardless on whether you support gay marriage or not, its a lot harder for young people to get married and start a family (gay or straight) if there are no jobs. And Obamanomics is anti-job. All Obamanomics does is provide more welfare for workers. It dispises job creators.

From what I understand, generally speaking Obama's "solution" is centered around raising taxes on the rich (who are generally the job creators). No matter what your interpretation of what effects previous tax cuts have had on job creation, to me it seems a bit more of a difficult to argue that raising taxes is the way to go to create new private sector jobs.

I'll chime in and say that increased taxes won't necessarily prevent me from hiring since that is driven by how much work I have that requires labor.

That said, increased taxes means less profit unless I pass off those costs to my customers which then has an impact on my competitiveness which means I might lose contracts which means I may have to layoff workers rather than hire them. I know, its a conumdrun.

The question then becomes, do I accept smaller profits and if so, at what point does it no longer become worth it? That's the question I and others who didn't build our business think about.

Whereas, "52 percent of Wisconsin voters in the early exit polls said they have a favorable view of unions for government workers, while 43 percent have an unfavorable opinion of these unions ~ 50 percent of Wisconsin voters say they approved of the recent changes to state law that limits collective bargaining for government workers, but 48 percent disapproved of these changes."

Again, if Walker had been recalled it would have been unprecedented in American history.

That said, Kasich was lucky Ohio didn't have a recall process as he would have gone down 61/39 just like Ohio's Issue 2 union busting referendum.

I yield back the balance of my time to Althouse cons in denial re: train wreck mittens!

damikesc said...Anybody who trusts Obama for job creation more than Romney should be disqualified for voting due to being a fucking moron.

---------I consider Romney a vastly superior choice but consider the public, and the messages chosen.

1. The public, backed by considerable evidence, believes free trade has gutted America of industries and good jobs.2. The public, backed by solid evidence of ZERO job growth since Bush's tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy continued under Obama - no longer believe the rich have any interest in being "Jobs Creators" inside America, and all tax cuts for them do is make them richer and put America deeper in debt.

Better messages for Romney:

1. I will eliminate by Executive Order regulations that hinder job creation, and I believe within months create a jobs creation climate that will add 5 million new jobs.

2. I will allow entrepreneurs and businesses that have parked trillions of dollars offshore a significantly lower tax rate if they bring that money back into America and show evidence that capital is invested in our private sector.

3. I will impose a 15% Value Added Tax on Chinese goods to match the same tax they put on things we seek to export made by American workers. China 1st because it is a currecy manipulator that has cost us millions of jobs under unfair free trade. I will do the same to the EU regarding their VAT on US goods with reciprocity, if the playing field is not levelled.

4. Henceforth, unless vital for public safety, by Executive Order, I will subject environmental regs to a cost benefit analysis and a national security analysis - we get off Arab oil, we will be safer and create far more high paying jobs in the energy sector.

5. I will take Simpson-Bowles to Congress and urge it's passage nearly in toto. To show my commitment, I will be asking Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, to take a staff position reporting directly to me on it's progress. We need it to create a stable and predictable fiscal environment so the economy can grow.

6. Contrary to what President Obama says, there are shovel-ready jobs if we eliminate lawyers, red tape, and bureaucratic regulatory delays in the way. Badly needed jobs to repair decaying US infrastructure. Enough jobs needed that we can set up training schools in inner cities. If Democrats agree to steamroller any legal and bureaucratic barriers away and waive the Bacon-Davis Act, I will agree to return tax rates to Clinton's rates - with all money gained going into those shovel ready jobs to repair the infrastructure. Jobs not for lawyers or "study groups" - but the unemployed white worker from Ohio retrained as a crane operator, the inner city black man trained as a welder in schools the Fed Government will support, the lady in Iowa that lost her store job who will be readied to move bridge gravel supplies.

I'll admit I'm basing my opinion on the internal party ID breakdowns of most of these polls along with what I see as an increasing difficulty in the polling of the American public. I think not only are people difficult to reach in the proper proportions, but are now less likely than ever to answer these polls truthfully. I'm with MadisonMan on this - I find it difficult to believe that anyone other than Obama's hardcore support would trust one of the worst job creators as President, ever, over a challenger. They tip their hand, there.

You would also need to compare the wording of the various polls to really judge the accuracy. Are they straightforward, or are the polling questions leading?

My prediction is that it won't be close. Even if I'm wrong, the fact is that historically, the polls are very often not even close to a predictor of the outcome at this juncture.

Colonel Angus said... The question then becomes, do I accept smaller profits and if so, at what point does it no longer become worth it? That's the question I and others who didn't build our business think about.

In a cost-benefit analysis taxes reduce the benefit. It may not effect your decision. In the type of decision you describe the risks are small and the timeframe defined and short. When considering a new business where the returns are further in the future and the risks high the likelihood of taxes effecting the decision is greater.

You also have to consider the uncertainty. Obama's preference, and the left's generally, is to increase taxes to pay for current and additional government spending. The uncertainty created when you don't know what the future tax rates will be requires a greater risk discount.

"I'll chime in and say that increased taxes won't necessarily prevent me from hiring since that is driven by how much work I have that requires labor."

If you did have work, you would have less to buy material, and equipment, and hire.

But, the real issue is that higher taxes don't just hit you, they hit your customer's too, and the richer they are the more they buy, but also the more the tax-the-rich hits them, so you will likely not get the added work, which you can't afford anyway, so it's a win/win - nobody needs that tax money anyway.

I think the polls are crazy. I don't know a single person who is voting for O. The people who voted for him in 08 are the most vocal. They are almost militant in their disgust. They say he is a fool that is ruining the country. What is the breakdown D/R/I? Most polls are scewed for D. The polls were wrong with Scot Walker, they are wrong now.

As a Californian, I can report that, No, it's really not, or at least the rest of you are gonna wish it wasn't. Why? Because we have been dominated by the left for decades, and now we are Greece with a siphon hose hooked up to your state. That sucking sound is gonna be us: entitled, hungry, and stupid - the Lamprey of America.

Darcy said... I'm with MadisonMan on this - I find it difficult to believe that anyone other than Obama's hardcore support would trust one of the worst job creators as President, ever, over a challenger.

I understand. But people interpret things differently. Most of Obama's support comes from people directly or indirectly working for government. If you work at the Department of Agriculture, or even in the local school district, you know Obama has no interest in limiting employment in any way that effects you. But you hear Republicans talk about decreasing government spending all the time. Maybe the only jobs you care about when asked that question are government jobs, because you know you're never going to work anywhere else.

You make a good point. I don't think we're at the tipping point where government employees and those living off the government own our elections yet, but the size of government is alarming. I guess we're going to find out. Very soon.

The one thing none of you are taking into account is an election that produces a divided result.

You know, Obama gets re-elected and the House and Senate go Republican?

I see this as a very likely scenario.

Gridlock. Obstruct away, Republicans.

Might not be so bad.

Two positive outcomes. Blacks can stop bitching that they're victims of something or other because they get what they want. (But, hopefully, that's the end of that!). And, neither Congress nor the President can do much.

The polls don't mean dick until 3-4 weeks before the election and after the debates. Do not be a sucker to the disinformation campaign and get disheartened. I see this shit all the time. I get texts and phone calls from my friends and are lamenting these swings in the polls and I have to tell them they are all bullshit because they are. It's the only way polling companies can justify their existences to keep getting used and getting paid.

Colonel Angus said... "In the type of decision you describe the risks are small and the timeframe defined and short"

This describes the business outline, not the tax. You described the decision as hiring (or not) another person for whose labor you already have a customer (direct or indirect).

Instead envision a new business to make a variation of a current product. It's going to take you 12-18 months to fully develop, and to do so you need 50 employees. The investment required is $12 million.

Now all of a sudden you're going to be paying an extra $2k / employee per year, which can increase at any time. Your effective income tax rate today is ~45%, but it's pretty easy to envision it going to 55. Plus it's likely we'll add a couple of points to each side of the medicare tax.

It's pretty easy to see how uncertainty could make you decide not to risk this, or at least to delay until you know what the parameters are. The effects of uncertainty are greater in decisions with longer payoff timelines and greater risk.

I think one of the reasons Obama retains so much support is he has so many different scandals in just four years, and the MSM has so dutifully avoided reporting on almost any of them, that low-information voters have decided it is all just right-wing misinformation.

Fast and Furious would have sunk any other President.

Now it just gets lost in the noise of EPA figuratively crucifying the first 5 people the meet to cow the rest, the war on Coal, the war on Energy Independence, the Keystone Pipestone obstruction, the refusal to defend DOMA or prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case, the defending Obamacare as a Tax when it was passed by explicitly not being a tax, the contortions to get obamacare passed, the tax cheats in the administration, the thuggish tactics towards businesses, the support of the Occupy movement, the breaking of promises to not hire lobbyists, to be transparent, to post all bills for 72 hours before signing into law, to show Obamacare negotiations on CSPAN, to not have an individual mandate, to not have signing statements, and all the msimanagement scandals in the TSA and GSA, the whistleblower prosecutions, the firings of IGs that pointed out wrongdoings, the stonewalling of the Fast and Furious investigation, the gaffes and gaffes and gaffes, the contraception mandate, the excessive number of Czars, the channeling of stimulus funds to cronies, the Obamacare waivers to those politically-connected to Obama, the Corzine theft of 1+ billion dollars, the high unemployment, the high gas prices, the 4 consecutive years of 1T+ deficits, the failure of the Senate to pass a budget, the only cuts in the entire govt being on military spending, pressuring senior military leaders to change their testimony to benefit a crony, having Solyndra delay layoff/failure announcements until after the election, rewarding the unions and screwing over investments in the GM bankruptcy, etc, etc, etc.

That's just off the top of my head. Anyone got any more to add?

With such a litany of mistakes, blunders, wrongdoings, and outright corruption, is it any wonder that low-information voters' minds shut down and refuse to process any of it? Is it any wonder that the people who voted for Obama refuse to face up to the fact that they put such a miserable failure into office?

Shouting Thomas said...I think that the problem for Romney is more that everybody is trying to find the scapegoat for the great Banking Scam of 2008. So far, Obama has successfully pointed the finger of blame at Romney.

The 2008 ripoff was the biggest ripoff in history, and people are rightly pissed.

I think they're confused. Obama is as tight with the Wall Street banksters as you can get. I don't understand how the Dems have managed to connect Romney to the scam, but they have.

================Lets say that if there were any Republicans at the time in 2008 that were out screaming about the need to put some of their Jobs Creator Heroes in jail for the scam...the public missed that.

All we got was "All this was unexpected by all the Bush regulators...we need to pass TARP to make the nation whole by making the bankers whole by giving them taxpayer money borrowed from China. Now is not the time to search for blame and criminalize the people who had the right intentions, but screwed up...And besides our K Street friends, remember that Howell Raines, Dodd and Frank were also in this - not that we want them to go to jail with the Jobs Creator Heroes."

By defending the con artists, Republicans lost a chance to distance themselves from those rich ripoff artists.

I don't think Obama/Biden can win this election, but I do think Romney/Ryan can lose it, and yesterday they seemed to be working hard at just that.They are not going to win by sounding as Obama Lite and confusing the voters with talk about which parts of Obamacare they are going to keep and which to modify, and so on. This kind of talk is just going to lose them the Republican base without gaining squat from independents or Democrats.

The one thing none of you are taking into account is an election that produces a divided result.

You know, Obama gets re-elected and the House and Senate go Republican?

I see this as a very likely scenario.

Gridlock. Obstruct away, Republicans.

Might not be so bad.

Two positive outcomes. Blacks can stop bitching that they're victims of something or other because they get what they want. (But, hopefully, that's the end of that!). And, neither Congress nor the President can do much.

That sounds good on paper.

But the reality is that Obama feels free to use his Czars and other unelected officials (Agency chiefs) to implement executive orders that he can't get through Congress.

So gridlock would just mean more opportunity for Obama to sidestep the democratic system, abetted by the MSM refusing to report honestly on it.

Bear in mind that there is a significant percentage of Americans that embrace the idea of an ever expanding role of government in our lives and Obama represents the ideal leader of this movement. So it stands to reason he will garner an ever larger chunk of votes.

Hagar wrote:They are not going to win by sounding as Obama Lite and confusing the voters with talk about which parts of Obamacare they are going to keep and which to modify, and so on

I actually happen to think the opposite. Lets be clear. Some things in Obamacare are potentially laudable. Being able to not keep insurance or get insurance with preexisting conditions is not in itself a bad idea. It's the implementation that's bad. If you reject EVERYTHING out of hand it feeds into the stereotype put out by the dems that republicans want to throw grandma off a cliff.If you don't say things you are for in health care reform your opponents the dems will demagogue your actual positoin as to what you are against. i.e Romney doesn't want to help people with pre conditions be able to afford insurance.

I saw an example of this today at work. Three of my coworkers were talking about how Romney wants to deny women the right to abortions even when it's not rape rape, and tsuggesting that Romney said that women can deal with pregnancy and not carry it to term if it's really rape, as opposed to rape-rape. in ohter words, attributing what that idiot said a few weeks ago to Romney.

Nathan, "and/or" made it appear you thought Lindsey and I were one in the same. I find it amusing that you think I would care what your opinion of me is, I certainly do not need your approval. What my loved ones, family and friends think of me is what counts, not some internet commenter who is a stranger to me.

Edutcher, check the list. I think the poll you are referring to is referenced for 9/7/12 and after re-balance comes out to Romney +5.42. The ARG website has the details of the poll and methodology. Basically, it has Romney up +3 with a party breakdown of 38 vs 34 for Dems vs Rep. So, even with those positive results for Romney it under counts them because the Dems are over sampled. That leads to the +5.42 after re-balance.

Got it. My stupid fault. I was literally looking for ARG (this is what I get for being literal).

As I say, though, love to see the one where they have him ahead by 10, but, yes, that's an interesting breakdown.

I don't believe the polls anymore. I get called regularly by pollers and I used to participate. However, after the Wisconsin protests, I stopped participating because I do not trust the pollers to not release data about who participated and their answers--I do not want to be targeted for retailiation because I supported conservative candidates/ideas in poll. Other conservatives/independents that I know have stopped participating too or else they give bogus answers, which makes me believe that the polling pool is no longer valid.

It's not like you can calmly correct anyone either. I do have a decent Facebook friend list, which is politically diverse. When I posted the Catholic position on rape, which allows Plan B btw if conception can not be determined, my secular friends had positive feed back. One even read the whole document, and was impressed how well thought out it was.

But most people get their news from Internet memes now, so misinformation goes viral with no way to correct it.

Nathan, "and/or" made it appear you thought Lindsey and I were one in the same. I find it amusing that you think I would care what your opinion of me is, I certainly do not need your approval. What my loved ones, family and friends think of me is what counts, not some internet commenter who is a stranger to me.

You elevate yourself too much.

Sure. I don't think you care about me or my opinion, but you have demonstrated you have at least a mild case of Prom Queen syndrome.

In any case, basic reading comprehension should make it clear that the and/or indicated that one or more of the entire list would make an appearance. If the and/or was supposed to imply you were possibly the same person, there would have been an additional "and" prior to listing "lindsey and/or AllieOop" as a single entity.

[shakes head] I knew progressives were atrocious at math, but I didn't think you were this bad at basic English grammar, too.

Obama is the worst president since the great depression regarding job creation. When he took office, we had just been through a recession where we went from 146 million jobs to 142 million. Then under Obama, we declined to 138 million. Now today after 4 years of Obama policies, stimulus, obamacare, we are at 142 million. Moreover, the yearly adjustments in late sept will show that number to be about 141 million.

That is totally pathetic. IN all other recessions, jobs bounce back a year or two later. That is because in all other recessions, presidents adopted policies that allowed businesses to have a positive outlook for the future.

Obama is the grand exception. He hates business so much, that is why we are stuck where we are.

Who does " Shouting Tomas". think he's fooling, cloaks all his arguments as if he's conservative... then you realize there all just rationzaions for Obama and critiques for Romney

And the best he wants Oama to win, supposedly because of divide government

What will divided government bring us if Obama and democrats already passed every major legislation two years old, Obamacare, reordering of the whole healthcare system, which will be in full 2013, Dodd/frank reordering of Wallstreet and Financial markets, government took over college debt, another bubble to burst.

Stimulus wasn't just 860 billion dollars of one time spending, democrats added 359 billion in welfare spending to the baseline of the federal budget. Plus Obama added 11, 312 new regulations in 3 yearsAnd numerous other bills, executive orders that will take to long to name.

All Obama will do with another 4 years is protect the crap he inflicted on America when Democrat's got flukky and got a super majority...

All republicans will just be is tax collectors for tsunami of debt we already have and the exploding debt once Obamacre starts paying out , and the markets realize America's debt and deficits are worse then anything in Europe right now.

Here's a little anecdote, which is not evidence, but it's what I've seen.

I've been volunteering for a local campaign in SE Wisconsin, going door to door. If I talk to the resident (if their home, and if they don't refuse to answer), I'll ask some questions starting with, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Mr./Ms. .... or Mr./Ms. .... or undecided."

If the resident is voting for the Democrat, seems about 90% of the time they'll let you know, loud and clear, and often with some invective for the Republican. ("I HATE that ..." or "That ... is such a liar", etc).

If they look around before they answer, they *always* answer for the Republican. And it's a quiet resolution of commitment, almost desperation, often followed by something like, "we have to, or we're screwed". It is uncanny.

There is a great deal of mistrust of those asking those kind of questions, and it seems to me to be on the Republican side.

Now, you might say it's because of how I ask the question, and that may be, but I try to be as neutral in appearance and mannerism as I can be.

I don't know how Rasmussen or PPP or any poll manages for this difference in attitude, but I am convinced the reluctance to answer the question is greater for those who favor the Republican. I am convinced the resolution of purpose to win is also greater for the Republican. That makes me think the polls don't reflect the whole story.

Its funny how polls have become gospel in this country. X poll says blah, blah, blah republicans suck. Y polls say democrats are demigods blah blah. I don't think we will be having this discussion in october. Jug ears is goin' down.

OT - Garage, what inspired the Molly Ivins icon? I have one fond memory of her (at her expense). She deserves a Nostradamus award for predicting the mid-1990s White House humor drought:

What's in it for me as a political humorist is that George Bush is just fabulous material. Bush-speak, the thing-thing, that gloriously daffy streak he has - "Read my lips," "90/90 hindsight," "the manhood thing."

...

If you have any mercy in your hearts for those who make a living being funny about politics, take pity on us. Mark Russell is going to commit suicide if we elect Bill Clinton. Saturday Night Live will fall on its collective sword. Russell Baker will molt and decline. Mike Royko will be stuck with Chicago and I'll be stuck with Texas. - Molly Ivins, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Election Day, November 3, 1992